~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

Of Myths and Men

Our new contributor, No Man’s Land, took a certain amount of heat on his post the other day for stating that the Genesis account of creation is a myth. He didn’t, if fact, say it’s a false myth, or a true myth, just that it is a myth, which it inarguably is.

It can’t be history, there was no one to write it down, except God, and He didn’t, and so it’s a myth, a legend. It’s become part of how the Judeo-Christian world sees itself. NML put this into comments, “First, by myth I don’t mean something that is false. I mean an organizing story that allows a culture, religion, and so forth, to explain itself to itself.” I think he’s exactly correct.

Perhaps if we take another myth to explain what he means (assuming I understand).

In John Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, we saw Ransom Stoddard. (Jimmy Stewart) the lawyer and effete easterner gets the girl because he manned up and shot Liberty Valance, and it carried him to a distinguished (and prosperous) career as well.

But all wasn’t as it seemed, was it? Tom Doniphan (John Wayne), a representative of the old way, do it yourself justice , so to speak, saved Stoddard‘s life before he ever got to town, and provided enough support structure to get him started.

All the while Doniphan spouted words about how hopeless anything but the rule of the gun was but, his actions spoke a different story didn’t they? He actively promoted the school, the move to statehood, and anything else that would help to civilize the country, and in addition taught Stoddard a bit about how to defend himself.

And if fact when the confrontation comes, Doniphan is there, in the shadows, backstopping the man of the law, with the man of the gun. And so Doniphan shot Liberty Valance but leaves Stoddard the credit.

And in so doing, we could say, it cost him everything he cared about, the girl, the respect of his society, a decent living. We see this in the meanness of his coffin a plain pine box with his possessions, mostly a broken down old pair of boots, and a gun, which without Stoddard would have been stolen as well.

It’s a sad story and a great western. It’s not a true story, It never happened in Shinbone or anywhere else, the way Ford tells the story. But you know, it happened everywhere in America in the last 350 or so years. We won this country (and hard fought it was) with the gun, and the knife, and the hard men who won it, mostly (but not always) gracefully, gave way to what we are pleased to call civilization.

And that’s why the movie is part of the American myth, it’s not literally true, but it tells a greater story about who and what we are, and there are timeless lessons in it, if we pay attention. And it not only speaks to us; it tells the world something of what it means to be an American, and how we got here.

Genesis is like that too. It may or may not be literally true, in this world we’ll never know, but it tells us much of God, and man, and how they relate to each other. It’s part of the myth of Judeo-Christian society.

Post navigation

50 thoughts on “Of Myths and Men”

In this interesting parallel John Ford is the authority or the Church that knows the truth and reveals that truth to the people who attend the film. It is not up to a film critic to deny the truth that is revealed by Ford though they may say that it makes no sense in their mind and their knowledge of human nature.

It is the reason why a Church exists and still gives us the needful truths that we must attend to; and to the rest, let the critics have their say.

As an aside NEO, I would also say that it is no harder for me to believe that Original Sin is passed down via generation than it is to believe that instincts (smart behavior by ignorant animals) is passed on by genetics. Both are mysterious and the workings of how these accomplish what they accomplish is rather similar and equally not understood.

I’m inclined to use somewhat different terminology, simply saying that man, like Liberty Valance is inherently sinful but if he tries hard, like Doniphan he can overcome it, with some help. Same concept, really, i think. 🙂

Well in the sense that concupiscence is ‘hard wired’ into man and can with the grace of Christ overcome it, yes. But my point is that a hatchling has the ‘intelligence’ to stick its rear end over the side of the nest so that it won’t die of parasites and disease; likewise will build an intricate nest and all the other necessary things for its survival. It is a ‘hard wired’ memory, if you will, of its first successful ancestor that utilized these methods to thrive.

We too have something other than instinct ‘hard wired’ into our makeup . . . and that is a propensity to be attracted to sinful behavior. We can overcome ours . . . for we are rational beings that have been given the Grace to know Christ and His Salvific action on our behalf. A bird cannot change its behavior . . . or if somehow it does, it will not live long whereas for man if we do not change ours we will only live as long as our hearts breathe and our lungs suck up oxygen. 🙂

Good follow on post Neo, which makes an excellent and necessary point about ‘myth’. As you say, ‘Genesis’ is very much the archetypal ‘myth’ in that it tells us something important about ourselves. St Paul’s account in Romans 7 sums it up perfectly, and if we want an explanation for why we do not do what we will, that which we do not will, the notion of Original Sin is there. I think it was Chesterton who said it was the only doctrine which could be explained by looking in the mirror!

‘LV’ is one of my favourite movies – great acting by all the leading parts, and Wayne at his best, as in ‘The Searchers’ where he’s allowed to explore the character he’s playing; a much underrated actor in my view.

You and Bosco are a fine pair of literalists. If you can make the science and your literalism work for you without lying to yourself, splendid. Those who can’t can believe in a wider version of God’s Truth beyond our feeble understanding. Still, if you think Adam and Eve were really created from dirt, best of luck with that – what’s the DNA structure of mud again?

If, as you admit, we are not required to believe the God making us from clay version, then surely the question you put is one for you to answer? Nothing discredits Christianity in the eyes of some than the idea that we are required to hold literally what is clearly scientific nonsense. It is not ripping the guts out to say that the story expresses the origin of our fall. How it is true, I can explain ad I can the Resurrection – with God all things are possible.

Comforting though it must be for you to make up your own rules about what is and is not allowed, they are your rules. Do read Geoffrey’s post today- then ask whether you are part of the problem or the solution.

Actually QVO there are 9 questions that every Catholic needs to ask themselves as they are all defined dogma by the Church (btw: made out of clay is not one of them):

1. Our first parents, before the fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace.
2. In addition to sanctifying grace, our first parents were endowed with the preternatural gift of bodily immortality.
3. Our first parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment.
4. Through sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.
5. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the devil.
6. Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation but by descent.
7. Original sin is transmitted by natural generation.
8. In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity.
9. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

I have been working on a counter-post to NML’s pieces but I am in two minds as to whether I should finish and post it. As Theo said, there is a great temptation here to be uncharitable. But if we are angry, it is because we are zealous. There is a great deal at stake here beyond Original Sin – it touches on the sorts of issues C gets at in his various series – e.g. the “Reading the Bible” one. This is dangerous territory.

If I have a vote Nicholas, I’d say go for it. A little passion on display is not necessarily directed at persons, even if it might look that way. I think it is more directed at ideas we cannot or will not accept on any terms.

True, but I feel it would be unkind to NML, especially as he’s just starting out here. If this were a church and I were it’s pastor, that would be different, because I’d have a duty to protect the flock from what I perceive as dangerous heresy – but neither of those conditions holds here. If he wants a principled refutation of his arguments there are plenty of rational Christian apologetics pages I can direct him to. I really do want to preserve the bond of unity as much as possible here. But I do find TOE repugnant on a number of grounds.

I too say go for it, Nicholas. he’s a big boy and can handle it, I think. I would add the usual caveat: attack the theory, not the man proposing it.

TOE cannot and doesn’t to me explain everything, and I think that was one of his points. But it is valid, within limits. how else can one breed a chihuahua from a wolf or for that matter, breed cows for beef and little milk, or lots of milk and lousy beef.

But that is precisely part of the problem as Theo flagged up. The definitions are problematic. I’m not saying I don’t believe in adaptation and genetic engineering (in fact I’m a fan of it in farming) – but there is a spiritual force here that concerns me.

NML is a very bright young man who handled himself with great patience and grace throughout the debate. I have great respect for him and I do not think he will take anything too personal. However, it might be nice if he responds and gives his blessings. From my understanding though, he has proved himself a worthy opponent and a man of good character and good will.

It sounds like everyone is encouraging you to post it, and I do not dissent, but I would suggest that you first pray for NML specifically as a Christian brother, and then read through your draft as if you were reading it aloud to him in person, tweaking what you need to in order to make it conform to the banner at the top of AATW: John 13:34. But that’s just what I advise, not what I actually do myself, because I never think of it when I’m firing off my response…

Yes, they are the premier exponents of that and they don’t fear God, whereas NML does. But I have to fight that spirit whoever bears it. I had such a reaction to his pieces – I was biting my metaphorical tongue when commenting or choosing not comment.

I’ve spent ta great deal of time wrestling with this stuff. I had to at university. You never knew when you might be challenged as a Christian. There is such a darkness there – professors openly denying that Christ claimed to be the Messiah or the Son of God. I don’t consider myself a gifted apologist, but it is my responsibility to contend for the Faith as entrusted to me.

All the more reason to say what your spirit is telling you to say. It will be evaluated by all and we all get a different perspective on the issue. We are, after all, here for the reason of learning from one another and/or understanding each other in a fuller sense.

Some days I really do want to be a Catholic…but, well difficile est. I wish that much of the 19th century reinvention of Catholicism in the UK hadn’t happened. All those aesthetes ruined it for quiet Protestant types.

Actually we have good orthodox, charismatic V2 Catholics these days. Franciscan University in Steubenville is a classic example: it is where Scott Hahn teaches and Alice von Hildebrand is on the board. At my wife’s Church (where she works) they have a fairly large charismatic group that meets once a week and they have many of their own functions. Most of them are rather orthodox in their theology. So if you want what you say you want: it is available. 🙂

Hello Nicholas. To get around all that messiness, do as Jesus told us and where the world like a loose garment, that is the world wherever you find it, even if that means the very Sanctuary before Mass. It helps me stay nicely detached from all the obvious errors I see whirling around everywhere. Many are called, few are chosen. I’ve only met a few in these years as a Catholic I’d consider saintly. The rest, well, they are more like me, a sinner. If you read Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Scott Hahn, you’ll find when he realized he was actually beginning to think like a Catholic, he spoke to his wife and promised her he wouldn’t rush into things so he said he’d take five years to make his decision one way or the other. Guess what? It didn’t take that long at all. What have we today? The fruits of all those years of labor prior to his conversion. He is a marvelous example of the good use God makes of all that Biblical study some Protestants can rightly be proud of. Just add the Holy Spirit and stand back! You’ll make a lovely addition to our dysfunctional family. But I’m a bit daft. I think that whole world should be Catholic! God bless. Ginnyfree.

Hello NEO. Thanks for taking your time with this reply. Interesting point of view. I’m troubled though by this: “Genesis is like that too. It may or may not be literally true, in this world we’ll never know, but it tells us much of God, and man, and how they relate to each other. It’s part of the myth of Judeo-Christian society.”

To me, as a Christian, I cannot call Genesis a myth, even after a spoon full of sugar helping it go down. It isn’t a literary device either. To me as a Catholic, both notions are heretical. I think if you look and see how many of our fundamental doctrines are wrapped up in those few short pages, you’ll understand why dismissing it as pius mythology is troubling. You are not a Catholic and so you aren’t technically bound to believe as we do. If you choose to join us, you will have to give an assent with you will to what the Church teaches about Genesis and the fundamental doctrines contained in her pages.

Another troubling fact about all this for me is that so many who believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and even claim Sola Scriptura as a personal credo, will toss that aside for modern science’s version of creation via evolution and big bangs, etc. to explain it all. Suddenly God is second fiddle and not to believed any more. Why they so eagerly embrace TOE is mystifying to me if they actually ARE Sola Scriptura. Can you see my point? It is the Word of God until science offers a better plan? Just on those grounds alone, SS, you’d think the Evangelicals and Calvinists and the Lutherans would reject TOE. I don’t understand. But like SF brought up, without any particular authority to guide one, then one is left to figure it out for oneself.

Thanks again for bring St. Paul’s reference to Adam up. God bless. Ginnyfree.

“It can’t be history, there was no one to write it down, except God, and He didn’t, and so it’s a myth, a legend.”

Since in fact it is written down, and in the inspired word of God, in what sense do you mean that God didn’t write it down? I’m not advocating a dictationist model of inspiration, but taking seriously the claim that the Bible is inspired, meaning at least that God is the source of its meaning. As NML himself complained in his second post, too many people regard God as just another force within nature, so the fact that God did not pick up pen and ink and apply them to paper is no argument to prove that God did not in fact cause it to be written down as it was.

Incidentally, as a historian, I know there are many parts of history writing about things that were not written down. We call them educated guesses, and we do mean them to be taken as literal fact. Now I recognize that we today have a different culture of meaning than the people in Moses’s day, when he wrote Genesis. But that difference cuts both ways; I am not at all sure that ancient Sumerians and Assyrians did not intend their myths to be understood as accounts of what *happened*. The line that “it’s just a myth that didn’t happen, but is used to communicate a lesson” seems to me to require a notion of the “inherent truth” of stories that seems to me no older than the Romantic era (19th C), clothing the older (obviously allegorical) medieval morality plays with a facade of realism. I would be fascinated if anyone could demonstrate that any ancient myth was composed by people who both (a) believed they were literally false, and (b) believed they communicated some deep truth. That is different from what I do see, which is that most ancient people seem to act as if the myths were literally true (not-a), and some ancient people make fun of the myths (not-b), while a very few educated people who did not make up the myths but admit to inheriting them try to make the best of what they regard as a bad situation by employing a non-literal hermeneutic to salvage any speck of truth (not a lot of b) out of false stories (a).

How could these stories tell us important things about ourselves if they did not happen? The movie you cite did not happen, and so it does not actually tell us anything important about America, beyond the lies that most Americans like to tell ourselves, and the fictions that we like to amuse ourselves with. Those are not important truths, but things for which people will answer on the last day.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris